Loading document...
Application No.: 21/00125/B Applicant: Callister Construction Limited Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage with associated parking and access Site Address: Plot 1 Port E Chee Lheaney Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2JF Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Site Visit: 04.03.2021 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.03.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposal is considered contrary to Strategic Policy 3 &5, General Policy 2b&c, Environmental Policy 42 as the design would be read at odds with the character of the surrounding streetscene and is considered over development for the site leading to an adverse visual harm with a perceived impact upon the adjacent trees contrary to Strategic Policy 4. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Bramcote, Lheaney Road, as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached dwellinghouse; Port E Chee, Lheaney Road, Ramsey. The property has a hipped tiled roof and attached flat roof garage to the west and a conservatory on the front elevation. The property sits to the north of the highway on a generous sized plot with large gardens to the rear. To the east of the site is another large detached dwellinghouse in generous ground called 'Bengairn', opposite the site
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing property and the erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage with associated parking and access. - 2.2 This application is referred to as Plot1. Plot 2 is part of a separate planning application ref; 21/00126/B and Plot 3 referenced; 21/00127/B, and should all be read in conjunction with each other. - 2.3 The proposed dwelling would be two stories high with a pitched roof and integrated garage. The front elevation would see a number of different finished with black facing brickwork to the surrounds of the garage; painted render to the lower proportions of the ground floor, hardwood boarding cladding to part of the front elevation up to the apex above the window and render to the remaining faces. The rood would be tiled with concrete interlocking tiles in a blue / grey colour. - 2.4 Internally the property would offer a traditional array of accommodation on the ground floor of a integrated garage with access into the corridor and a lounge at the front and kitchen dining and utility at the rear and a W/C. Upstairs would see 4 bedrooms one ensuite and a family bathroom. The property would have a footprint measuring 11m x 9m and a ridge height of 8.6m with parking across the front elevation and private gardens to the rear.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area designated as 'Predominantly Residential' under the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area and not within a flood risk area. - 3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application; - 3.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
3.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 3.5 Strategic Policy 4 (in part): "Proposals for development must:
3.8 Spatial Policy 2: Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services o Ramsey o Peel o Port Erin o Castletown o Onchan Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement. - 3.9 The text preceding Environment Policy 42 gives helpful guidance for new development within existing settlements with respect to protecting the character and identity of the streetscene; "In terms of existing settlements, in both rural and urban areas, new development will be expected to follow the following design principles. Development will need to:
3.10 The strategic plan gives guidance on the interpretation of "Infill development(1)" (in the sense of filling a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage) may be acceptable in built up areas, but the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated, even in small settlements. - 3.11 Also within Appendix 1 a definition; Infill development Building on a relatively small site in between two existing buildings. - 3.12 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." - 3.13 General Policy 2 (GP2) (in part) Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
3.14 Housing Policy 4 (in part) states that: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans…" - 3.15 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 3.16 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7." - 3.17 LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8, "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe". - 3.18 Other Material Considerations The Department has published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. This includes specific guidance on new houses, and impacts on Neighbouring Properties.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 06/00832/B - Erection of a conservatory. Approved. 04/01288/B - Erection of wooden shed to rear of dwelling. Erection of wooden fence
along front boundary of dwelling. Approved.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Ramsey Commissioners do not object (22/02/21) but have commented with; "Whilst the Board is happy to see some development on the site of Port e Chee, Lheaney Road, Ramsey it is felt that the size of the properties did not respect the site and the surrounding
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.2 Principle The starting point here is the land designation within the area plan which designates the site as predominately residential. The site currently has one dwelling on site and the proposal is to replace this, (and with the addition of two further dwelling on the same site as noted in para 2.2). The location of the site as identified is within Ramsey, which is a named as a service centre for regeneration and housing and would accord with Spatial Policy 2, which in turn ensures development within existing towns and villages is broadly supported through Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4. As this site is adjacent and surrounded by existing residential dwellings the proposal would satisfy the criteria for Strategic Policy 1.The principle of a new residential dwellinghouse here is acceptable. - 6.3 Visual Impact The proposed layout of the scheme would see the demolition of the existing
dwellinghouse and the construction of a detached dwelling at two stories in height in this application. When read in conjunction with the other two applications, as noted in para 2.2, would see the creation of three dwellings on site, where there is presently one. Strategic policy 3 seeks that local material and character are used (emphasis on 'character' here) which is echoed through strategic policy 5 where new development should make a positive contribution.
6.4 Whilst the streetscene is varied in the appearance of the existing dwelling houses, the plot sizes of those existing dwellings are broadly similar. The subdivision of the land into three plots, each approx. 11m wide,(when measured off the plan at 1/500 scale) with narrow separation distances between them (approx.2.0m), could be read at odds with those in the locality. Environmental Policy 42 refers to any design to take account of the local character and identity. With regard to plot 1 and the scope of this application, the siting of proposed development so close to the boundary of west with 'Dunbar' would seem significantly at odds with that of the properties in the surrounding area and streetscene and the spaces between them. This close proximity, twinned with the intensification use of the plot could be perceived to have an over bearing impact in the streetscene.
6.5 It is further noted parking and turning would be across the front of the property, removing the ability of having any gardens to the front. Again given the character of the area, gardens at the front are prevalent and in this case the outlook from the front lounge window would be over the parking area, which is contrary to what guidance is given in the residential design guide at section 6.3 (Driveways and Front Gardens) that seeks front gardens should make up at least 50% of the area. - 6.6 On balance the comments from the local authority and the neighbouring property that consider the proposal over development, would be justified and this part of the proposal would be seen as being contrary to STP3, STP5 and EP42. - 6.7 The proposed design is subjective and would be similar in appearance and layout to what is seen elsewhere on the larger modern estates around the island that is commonly used by the volume house builders. Whether this design is appropriate for the streetscene is subjective but few of the properties here have integrated garages which are a sign of the existing traditional design and appearance in this street scene (the site and area is not a conservation area) where there are buildings of varied ages with garages to the sides and none bear any resemblance to what is proposed. This proposal due to its size and massing, would markedly change the appearance and character of the site frontage from what it is now, which is currently enclosed by a mature hedgerow along Lheaney road with a single dwelling / bungalow and would be considered contrary to GP2b as it cannot be said the proposed development respects the site or its surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form and design. As the proposal fails to satisfy the test of GP2b, in turn the proposal would be considered to have a significant adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area, contrary to GP2c. - 6.8 Neighbouring Amenities The level and scale the proposed dwelling, is considered to be relatively modest and not
judged to cause harm to the enjoyment of the occupants of the main dwellinghouse or considered to harm the neighbouring amenity, specifically the closest neighbour to the west 'Dunbar'. There are no windows proposed in the side elevation that would offer any overlooking or loss of privacy.
6.9 When considering whether there would be any loss of light or overshadowing from the built form of the dwelling, given the siting that is in line with the neighbouring property 'Dunbar' it would not be considered to have an overbearing effect or lead to a loss of privacy. It is further noted we have not received any objections or comments from the adjoining neighbours. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g). - 6.10 Highway Safety The proposed access would need to accommodate the vehicle movements associated with the dwellinghouse, parking on site and takes into consideration visibility splays and highway safety for all users. In this instance it is noted Highway Services does not object. On balance, the support on this application from highways services and the level of information on drawings ensures the proposal would comply with STP10, TP4 & 7 and GP 2 (h&I) of the Strategic Plan and conditioned accordingly. - 6.11 Impact on the trees The concerns from the Arboricultural officer are noted and their concerns on the impact on the mature elm tree situated in the neighbouring easterly property. Their concern is more focused on the impact on the tree roots which is likely to result in a decline in the trees physiological condition and reduce its normal life expectancy. Given the importance of the trees of this large size and high visibility to those using Lheaney Road, development as it stands would be contrary to Strategic Policy 4.
6.12 Whilst the Arboricultural officer considers an arboricultural impact assessment and tree protection plan be submitted, given the broad reasons for confliction of the proposal and the relevant policies in the Strategic Plan, at present it would not be appropriate to seek an impact assessment.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan, namely Strategic Policy 3 &5, General Policy 2b&c, Environmental Policy 42 as the design would be read at odds with the character of the surrounding streetscene and is considered over development for the site leading to an adverse visual harm with a perceived impact upon the adjacent trees contrary to Strategic Policy 4. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 24.03.2021 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
